After World War II, the British left India, which was to be
partitioned into two independent nations. One would have a Hindu
majority, the other a Muslim majority. More than 7 million Muslims
moved to the territory that became Pakistan. A similar number of
Hindus and Sikhs moved to India. Today, not one remains a refugee.

After World War II, the British left Palestine, which was to be
partitioned into two independent nations. One would have a Jewish
majority, the other a Muslim majority. About 750,000 Muslims left the
territories that became Israel. A similar number of Jews left
Arab/Muslim lands. Today, not one of the Jews remains a refugee. But
there are still Palestinian refugees — indeed, their numbers have
mushroomed to almost 5 million. How is that possible?

Through two mechanisms: A refugee, by definition, lives on foreign
soil but for Palestinians the definition has been changed so that a
displaced Palestinian on Palestinian soil also receives refugee
status. Second, the international organization responsible for
resettling refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, was cut out from the start. A new organization was set up
exclusively for Palestinians: the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency. In 1950, UNRWA defined a refugee as someone who had “lost his
home and his means of livelihood” during the war launched by
Arab/Muslim countries in response to Israel’s declaration of
independent statehood. Fifteen years later, UNRWA decided — against
objections from the United States — to include as refugees the
children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who left
Israel. And in 1982, UNRWA further extended eligibility to all
subsequent generations of descendants — forever.

Under UNRWA’s rules, even if the descendant of a Palestinian refugee
has become a citizen of another state, he’s still a refugee. For
example, of the 2 million refugees registered in Jordan, all but
167,000 hold Jordanian citizenship. (In fact, approximately 80
percent of Jordan’s population is Palestinian — not surprising since
Jordan occupies more than three-fourths of the area historically
referred to as Palestine.) By adopting such a policy, UNRWA is
flagrantly violating the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, which states clearly that a person shall cease to be
considered a refugee if he has “acquired a new nationality, and
enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality.”

But UNRWA’s plan is to continue growing — rather than shrinking — the
Palestinian refugee population ad infinitum. According to UNHCR
projections, by 2030 UNRWA´s refugee list will reach 8.5 million. By
2060 there will be 25 times the number registered by UNRWA in 1950 —
even though not one of those who actually left Israel is likely to
still be breathing.

Everyone understands what it would mean if all these refugees were
actually to be granted a “right to return” to Israel. "On numbers of
refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed
1 million,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said on
March 24, 2009. “That would mean the end of Israel.”

But, of course, that’s the goal: The descendants of those displaced
more than 60 years ago — when the first offer of what we’ve come to
call a “two-state solution” was rejected — are being used as pawns to
prevent a two-state solution now or in the future. By increasing the
number of refugees, by maintaining that population in poverty,
dependence and anger, by understanding that the “right of return”
will be demanded by some Palestinian leaders, UNRWA is helping the
extremists prevent peace and continue to wage a war of annihilation
against Israel. This anti-peace policy is being funded largely by
Americans: The U.S. has always been the largest donor to UNRWA,
contributing about $4.4 billion since 1950.

A few members of the U.S. Congress have figured out what’s going on
and plan to do something about it. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is
working on an amendment to the fiscal year 2013 State-Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill that, for the first time, would
establish as U.S. policy that only a Palestinian refugee can be
classified as a Palestinian refugee — not a son, grandson or great-
grandson, and not someone who has resettled and taken citizenship in
another country. The Kirk amendment would require the secretary of
state to report to Congress on how many Palestinians serviced by
UNRWA fit the traditional definition of a refugee.

Rep. Howard Berman, (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House of
Representative Committee on Foreign Affairs, also is considering
legislative options in response to these problems. At the very least,
these approaches would assure that descendants of refugees would be
listed — with unaccustomed clarity — as “descendants of refugees.”

They might still be eligible to receive UNRWA “services” but
as “Palestinian Authority citizens” who could look forward to
becoming citizens of a Palestinian state — if and when the
Palestinians come to the conclusion that establishing a Palestinian
state is worth the cost: giving up the dream of destroying the Jewish
state. Too few Palestinians are there yet. If Congress can rein in
UNRWA, more may be moved in that direction.